Anti-smoking study makes useless claims.

This study is guaranteed to be used by the anti-smoking crowd as proof! that smoking is hurting the children. Yet, once you look beyond the headline (which seems pretty damning), you see that there really isn't much there.

Fewer teens in towns with restaurant tobacco bans light up, study says

Now, watch the spin cycle...

A Massachusetts study suggests that restaurant smoking bans may play a big role in persuading teens not to become smokers.

Youths who lived in towns with strict bans were 40 percent less likely to become regular smokers than those in communities with no bans or weak ones, the researchers reported in the May issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

Wow! 40 percent! That's a pretty significant number. But... wait... Is it really 40%? Actually, it's not.

Siegel and his colleagues tracked 2,791 children between ages 12 and 17 who lived throughout Massachusetts. There were no statewide restrictions when the study began in 2001 but about 100 cities and towns had enacted a hodgepodge of laws restricting smoking in workplaces, bars or restaurants.

The teens were followed for four years to see how many tried smoking and how many eventually became smokers.

Overall, about 9 percent became smokers — defined as smoking more than 100 cigarettes.

In towns without bans or where smoking was restricted to a designated area, that rate was nearly 10 percent. But in places with tough bans prohibiting smoking in restaurants, just under 8 percent of the teens became smokers.

But... I thought 40% didn't become smokers? Now you're telling me there was a 2% difference in a study with 2,791 participants? That's a pretty small number of variation and definitely small enough to call the findings insignificant.

The study found that having a smoker as a parent or a close friend was a factor in predicting whether children experiment with cigarettes. But strong bans had a bigger influence on whether smoking grew into a habit, reducing their chances of becoming smokers by 40 percent.
- Source

Oh, okay. So that's where they got the 40%. But, you just showed that the difference is 2%? 8% smoked in areas where smoking is banned, and 10% where smoking wasn't. Where the fuck does this 40% come from? And even more curios. Why am I getting conflicting numbers from sources?

Overall, 9.3 percent of the participants became established smokers over the study period, including 9.6 percent of those living in towns with weak restaurant smoking regulations (where smoking is restricted to designated areas or not restricted at all), 9.8 percent of those in towns with medium regulations (smoking is restricted to enclosed or ventilated areas, or no smoking is allowed but variations are permitted) and 7.9 percent of those in towns with strong regulations (complete smoking bans).
- Source

Oh, okay. So, they just rounded. But they also omitted a value field of the study. But I still don't get where they got this 40% from.

In towns that banned smoking in restaurants ahead of the state law, 7.9 percent of participants had smoked more than 100 cigarettes when the study began; in towns with weak laws, the rate was 9.6 percent. After adjusting for a variety of factors, such as age, race, and household income, the difference widened to 40 percent, Siegel said.
- Source

Oh, so that's where. It only took me reading eight different versions of the same article before I found out where the 40% came from, and even then it doesn't really explain it. So, the 40% was created from adjusting a variety of factors we arrive at 40%? In other words, this is entirely bullshit numbers pulled out of someone's ass?

"We already have more than enough evidence why we should pass these smoke-free laws, but certainly this study should help push them along,'' said Danny McGoldick of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.
- Source

Now I see. It wasn't just pulled out of someone's ass, it was created as propaganda. Kind of like the EPA's findings that were ruled by federal judge to be unsound and misleading.

From the time the report was issued, even scientists not affiliated with the industry criticized the EPA for using too low a standard for what constitutes causation rather than chance.

Osteen agreed that the agency's science was lacking. "Using its normal methodology and its selected studies, EPA did not demonstrate a statistically significant association between [secondhand smoke] and lung cancer," he said. Statistical significance is the scientific standard that separates interesting results that could be the product of chance from more convincing evidence that is likely to constitute a true association.

"EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion," Osteen wrote.

Since the report was issued, indoor smoking bans have popped up in hundreds of states, cities and counties. California, for example, prohibits smoking even in bars.

The blow to the EPA report could give new energy to opponents of these bans, since "the release of the original risk assessment gave an enormous boost to efforts to restrict smoking at the state and local levels," said Matthew L. Myers, a spokesman for the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids.
- Source

The EPA secondhand smoke report ruling is best summed up this way:

It may be politically correct to attack secondhand smoke, but it is
not scientifically correct nor, in the Court's opinion, legally
correct.
The Court's ruling clearly confirms that:

• EPA deliberately misled the American public about the science
  concerning secondhand smoke.


• EPA was guilty of major scientific and procedural errors in
  preparing its Risk Assessment.


• EPA cherrypicked information, changed the standards of scientific
  inquiry and tortured the data to reach a predetermined conclusion.


• EPA abused its power and authority in an effort to force regulation
  on secondhand smoke when the scientific basis for the EPA's claims
  simply did not exist.

- Source

Is secondhand smoke toxic? Yeah, it probably is. Is it the health risk that so many moan and groan about? Rather unlikely. Especially when you consider the massive amount of carbon we pump into our atmosphere, the noxious fumes emitted from vehicles and nearby plants, chemicals being dumped into our water supplies and prevalent in our food supplies. If the anti-smoking lobby would commit half of their energy and money into cutting toxic waste dumped into our rivers and streams they would probably save a shit-ton more lives than they would with a smoking ban.

Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Altria, parent company of cigarette-maker Philip Morris USA, said the study shows that the reasons teens take up smoking are complex.

"There is no single reason why young people engage in risky behaviors like smoking,'' he said. "We believe that there should be a multifaceted approach to address youth smoking.''
- Source

So, the only making sense is the evil tobacco representative? Put that in your pipe and smoke it.